Baseline has a good article
about the offshoring trend. One interesting aspect of it is that they discuss
the possibility that companies are training their own competitors. I'm not so
sure that applies to insurance companies going offshore, but it might to
technology companies. Anyway, it's an interesting thought. Typically, US
employees are bound by non-compete to not completely rip off the IP of the
companies that they work for, but are offshore workers bound by the same
constraint? How would you sue an offshore company for infringement?
It seems to me that a lot of the consternation and hype surrounding
offshoring is because of the lame economic environment and is the result of
simple linear thinking. They cite the total of 800,000 "back-office" jobs that
will leave to go offshore. What proportion of new jobs is that? What is the
effect on prevailing wages for "back-office" jobs? How many new jobs would be
created if we were to legally preclude this activity? How would that affect US
competitiveness?
I do agree with some of the other conclusions in the article that emphasize
that if we are going to continue down this path, there really needs to be a idea
of how to retrain displaced workers so they can continue to be productive. In a
free country, most of this responsibility falls to the individual, but the
absence of any help will cause a social backlash against the trend with possibly
far-reaching implications.
I'm impressed with this analysis - it is not just the cookie-cutter alarmism
and shows some creative thought and research.